Asking The Right Questions

In concept, I have no problem with robots.  The idea of having tireless machines doing the necessary labor to free up humans for higher pursuits sounds vaguely Star Trekky and Utopian.

Suppose robots tilled the soil, picked the fruits, delivered it to your door.  Suppose they built our houses, trimmed our lawns and rattled the pots in the kitchen.  Suppose they operated the generators, purified the water and produced our clothing.  Suppose anything we wanted or needed was delivered promptly to our doors around the clock every day of the year by machines that needed no sleep or vacations.  Suppose robots did everything for us so that we were completely freed of drudgery and able to pursue self-enrichment and art for the rest of our lives.

There'd be no need for money.  Who would you pay?  Everything is done by self-repairing and -replicating machinery.  The farms and factories would run themselves with virtually zero human input - oh, maybe the occasional check-in to see if the robots' self-diagnostics were sufficiently tweaked.  Maybe a handful of folks, on a rotating basis, to scan the error reports for problems the machines couldn't handle.

If there was no human labor, no person giving up a part of their life and talents to produce some necessity, and everything one could imagine came to the door within minutes of ordering, what would things cost?  After all, machines would mine the raw materials, refine them, recreate and train themselves, constantly maintain and upgrade the infrastructure of civilization - and all without a human even batting an eyelash in the direction of manual labor.  What would there be to pay for?

We wouldn't need governments because the machines would be self-regulating.  We wouldn't need banks or financial institutions.  There would be no markets to trade goods that are automatically distributed according to whatever is needed at any given location.

Machines would feed themselves and the rest of us with electricity that they produce as a matter of course.  They would refine, process and package our goods, collect the trash, recycle it and produce something else with the materials.

The machines would routinely maintain parks and recreation areas.  They would scurry out at night to repair roads, cars and aircraft every night, so that the next day, everything was in perfect operating order.  They would operate the amusement parks, constantly swim around the oceans clearing trash and pollutants.  They would fan out across the Solar System, using whatever resources locally available to pre-build colonies that we would blithely inhabit once they were fully operational.

Humans would thus be free to study and learn, think and create art, explore and aspire.  No longer constrained by government or labor, humanity would blossom into a benign race of hyper-intellectuals, focused entirely and for life on developing our minds and souls, each of us becoming demi-gods aided and abetted by semi-autonomous creations.

When you think about it, it sounds wonderful.  There would be no elites, everything we need and want would be provided in lavish amounts completely free of cost of any kind.  Money would vanish, becoming a quaint old idea.  Every individual would be free to consume the entire creative output of humanity and then add new concepts and ideas to the greater good.

It sounds wonderfully idyllic.  It sounds too good to be true.

We must assume two possible outcomes: 1) all of humanity, collectively and individually, grows to the next level of self-actualization, or 2) an elite determines that it is the sole beneficiary of this paradise and the rest of us need to be eliminated.

Given the history of humanity, I suspect the latter scenario is the most likely.

Whatever the outcome, we have taken the first steps towards this destination.  The EU has passed legislation granting robots "electronic personhood," and the concept of universal guaranteed income is being bandied about as a solution for displaced labor.

At some point on this path, money must become obsolete; after all, who needs cash when everything costs nothing?  Governments and corporations become redundant, because the production and distribution systems are completely automated.  Eventually, a whole bunch of people become unnecessary to those who fancy themselves the rulers - and certainly more valuable than the rest of us.

It seems to me the real conversation here is NOT what will happen to humanity when the machines take over, but what will happen to the elites?

If there is no need to governments, money or economy even vaguely resembling what we know now, doesn't that really make the elites redundant?  Doesn't the complete democratization of knowledge and necessities really mean there is no place for an elite?

Perhaps we are now witnessing the end of Controllers.  Perhaps the fear and loathing many of us have noticed on the parts of the elite is really the horrifying realization on their part that they are quickly becoming superfluous buffoons who are powerless to control resources, and thus the rest of us.  What happens when there are only a few thousand self-proclaimed and out-moded elites and a few billion of the rest of us who are suddenly freed from the day-to-day grind and have time to think, read and ponder?

Suppose the Neo-Populist movement sweeping the world is just the opening salvo across the bow of the elite class, and that at some level - mostly subconscious at this point - we all realize what is coming and what it could mean for all of us?

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question here.  It is not what the elites will need with us when the future arrives, it is what we will need with elites when we are all members of that class?

REVIEW: I, Robot (film)

Title: I, Robot (2004)
Director: Alex Proyas
Writers: Jeff Vintar, Akiva Goldsman, Isaac Asimov (novel)
Stars: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan, Alan Tudyk
Details: 115 mns, English, DTS/Dolby, 2.35:1, color

"That, lieutenant, is the right question."

You are probably thinking, "Why is this guy writing a review of a 12-year-old movie?"  Valid question, but I think re-watching the film will remind you of just how prescient this film really is, not to mention how well it is made.

Alex Proyas is one of the least heralded geniuses in contemporary cinema.  His films, such as Dark City and The Crow have become cult classics, and for good reason.  They are movies made for thinking people, with very high production values and superb acting - even by two-dimensional performers like Will Smith.  Proyas' filmography should be cornerstones in a well-rounded cinema library.

The visual art aside, what is most appealing about I, Robot are the ideas presented in the story.  The screenplay is smartly written, inspired by a novel by one of the titans of 20th century science fiction: Isaac Asimov.  Furthermore, this film, like all of Proyas' work, is very original, unlike the microwaved left-overs that currently dominate US cinema.

The story is richly layered, with several insightful monologues that both shed light on the characters' motivations, but touch on much larger issues with which society is quickly being confronted issues such as the legal, moral and ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.  Oh sure, there is plenty of action and special effects to entertain the cretins in the audience, but intelligent and educated people will find much to chew on here.

The story is inspired by Isaac Asimov's novel of the same name.  In it, he posits the Three Laws of Robotics that must be hardwired into every robot produced.  Those laws are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

On the surface, the story centers around a cynical cop named Spooner with a deep distrust of robots, which have become commonplace in the world of 2035.  His opinion is roundly ridiculed, though, as the larger world has grown quite comfortable and trusting of the machines.  When Spooner is called to the scene of Dr. Lanning's suicide at the headquarters of USRobotics (USR) by a holographic message, he meets Dr. Calvin, a cold psychiatrist who researches and develops machine minds.  Together they search Dr. Lanning's laboratory, where they discover "Sonny," a one-of-a-kind robot developed in secret by Lanning.  A copy of Hansel and Gretel sitting on a table in the lab gives Spooner the idea that Lanning has left "bread crumbs" to follow in order to solve the mystery of his suicide.

Spooner and Calvin come to realize that "Sonny" is unique, in that it has emotions, dreams and secrets, not to mention redundant systems and an alloy frame much stronger than the normal products.  It becomes obvious that Lanning built "Sonny" with a specific purpose that is slowly revealed over the course of the story.  We also learn that Spooner has an artificial arm, which is how he met Lanning and developed a relationship with the inventor, as a result of a tragic car accident in which a robot chose to save Spooner over a 12-year-old girl because the robot calculated Spooner had a better chance of survival.  This cold, calculating logic is what disturbs Spooner and makes him deeply distrustful of robots.

Ultimately, Spooner's suspicions are confirmed when the robots attempt to take over humanity.  The reason is that the logical conclusion of the Three Laws of Robotics is AI control of civilization being the only way to fulfill the mission of protecting humans at any cost, as well as themselves, provided it does not violate the first two laws.  Thus, the AI concludes that humanity's wars and strife must be controlled to protect both humans and robots.

While the film works quite well as a cautionary tale of Man versus his own creations, it has a much deeper and more interesting side.  There is a specific reason that a black actor was cast in the central role, because the story is a subtle play on prejudice and political correctness.

Spooner's distrust, even hatred, of robots has a deep cause and one that is not readily apparent to the casual observer.  Despite considerable pressure and ridicule, he believes in and persists in his prejudice and is eventually proved right.  The juxtaposition of a black man as a character whose deep-seated prejudices are one of his prime motivations is a most interesting play on the politically correct society that openly castigates individuals for their prejudices, without ever seeking to understand why the individual has them.

There are not many movies that could get away with this type of message, especially in today's racially charged society.  Despite the subtlety of the message, it is nonetheless quite obvious and mentioned a number of times by other characters, though the script never gets preachy.  The fact that Spooner is ultimately justified in his prejudice is even more interesting, as it makes clear that individuals may be motivated by emotions and instincts that are not open to everyone, and that there may be valid reasons for people to have and foster their prejudices.  In fact, the film is an argument in favor of REAL diversity, where people are allowed to believe as they wish and associate with whomever they wish.

On another level, the film is also an exploration of the very real possibility that if we are successful in creating AI, that it will have its own prejudices, want to associate with its own kind and will, in fact, be as uncontrollable as any human being.

There is a pervasive attitude that just because we create something, it must serve us.  This is the same mistake committed by Yahweh in the Biblical stories (and yet another argument that Yahweh is not omnipotent).  The creation of Life, no matter what form it takes or what providence it has, is not obligated to serve a Master.  It is as free to choose for itself what course it will take, as any other life form of which we are aware.

Finally, the film explores the limits of logic.  This is a theme which has been explored at great length and to great effect by the character Spock in Star Trek.  It also one of the prime themes of the novel that inspired this film.  While we celebrate reason and logic as a means to free ourselves from slavery to emotions, it too has limits that we must be aware of, and seek a balance between the impetuousness of our instincts and the coldness of pure reason.

The motivating event in Spooner's life was his profound grief that a robot calculated his chances of survival at 45%, while the young girl's was only 11%, and so the robot chose to rescue him.  A human might have added further importance on the girl's life, since she was younger and had more to live for than a mature adult.  Though some may argue that the robot made a valid choice, Spooner reasons that a basic human value is to protect the innocent at all costs.

Superficially, I, Robot appears to be a high-quality summer blockbuster.  There are some very original actions scenes, especially the Tunnel Attack, which shows some very unconventional thinking on the parts of the director and effects team.  The world of the film is very detailed and profoundly fleshed out, down to small details only seen for the briefest of seconds on screen.  The robots are intriguing and believable, and the effects compositing is well done, with no apparent seams or color shifts.  Patrick Tatopoulos' production design and Simon Duggan's cinematography work well together, with an interesting color palette, careful and detailed lighting and lots of deep fields.  We are shown the film's world from the macro to the micro, and the details and continuity hold up well across all scales.  The editing is crisp without calling attention to itself, keeping the story moving at a good pace, but lingering long enough on details the audience needs.  Marco Beltrami's score is subtle, yet does a fine job of building emotional tension, though I must say the opening titles and theme share a lot of elements with Hollow Man, released four years before this film.  There is a unity of vision apparent in this film that is rare in even grossly high-budget sci-fi fare.

The acting is above average, even for "movie stars" like Will Smith.  Bridget Moynahan's Dr. Calvin is well-acted and has a nice development arc, moving from Ice Queen to quite a bit warmer and more human.  Alan Tudyk does a remarkable job animating the "Sonny" character.  The voice is haunting and the motion-capture animation brings his characterization to life in a disturbingly life-from-lifeless way.  The only character that seems unnecessarily two-dimensional is Bruce Greenwood's Lawrence Robertson, the CEO and creator of USR.  The character is not very complex and it would have greatly enhanced the story if he had been motivated by something less pedestrian than mere greed.  His death tries too hard to be ironic and would have had a much higher emotional impact with some simple additions to his persona.  James Cromwell's Dr. Lanning is, perforce, two-dimensional and I was left wanting a bit more back-story to understand his motivations.

I, Robot works for any audience.  It can be mindless eye-candy for the shallow mind, or it offers quite a bit of meat on the bone for the thinking person.  In either case, one walks away feeling like they have gotten their money's worth in all aspects of the production.

The message I walked away with was that judging others for their prejudices is, in itself, just another form of prejudice.

Welcome To The Machine

Why would anyone in their right mind place their lives, or the lives of anyone they even remotely care about, in the hands of a computer?

I have never met, nor do I ever expect to meet, a piece of technology that functions perfectly at all times and in all places.  Oh sure, I have a number of decidedly low-tech machines, like A/C units, a refrigerator, a microwave, a washing machine, etc. - that do reasonably well, given regular cleaning and maintenance.  But I bought my first piece of major electronic gear - an IBM 8086 computer - back in 1986, and I have been pulling my hair out over every successive purchase ever since.

The fact of the matter is that electronics, and the software that controls them, are susceptible to all sorts of problems.  Random electrical spikes, buggy code and the notorious "ghost in the machine" that plagues complex networks mean that putting one's life in the hands of a computer is tantamount to suicide.

Of late, self-driving cars and robots have all been the rage.  Uber in Singapore has fielded a fleet of driverless taxis.  Robotic and robot-assisted surgery is coming online.  Autonomous aircraft and boats are quickly becoming the military toys of choice.  In fact, artificial intelligence is being built into nearly every kind of device and appliance you can think of.

I love technology.  It can be very entertaining and certainly I have had a long career using some of the most cutting-edge communications technology available.  I am by no means a Luddite.  I regularly use tablets, laptops, cell phones, work stations, and very complex networks for lighting and sound.

But if you ask me to put my life, or anyone else's, in the hands of a machine that doesn't have a trained human operator controlling it, then I politely but firmly decline.

Not only are machines subject to all sorts of subtle and random quirks, there is also the matter of government and corporate back doors, and the ever-enthusiastic hackers who find breaking and entering electronic locks an irresistible challenge.  It's bad enough that organizations can build eerily detailed profiles of individuals based on their internet activity, but to put one's physical self and well-being in the hands of those organizations is deeply disturbing.

There are two things we can say with a great degree of certainty: machines do not always work perfectly, and lust for power will always lead some people to try and control other people.

Not only have driverless car deaths started to rise in the very short period this technology has been in the wild, but there is even discussion of programming these vehicles to sacrifice the lives on-board if the vehicles programming determines it will save other lives.  I don't know about you, but the latter is one decision that only I want to make for myself and those in the car with me.  As for the former, one of the creepiest scenes in Minority Report is when the "authorities" take over Tom Cruise's car and attempt to bring him in.

It appears that the individual is increasingly being asked to forfeit not only the right and responsibility of making one's own decisions, but to hand that right over to machines whose only capacity for making those decisions is based entirely on algorithms designed by someone else.  Furthermore, those algorithms are in the control of organizations that historically cannot be trusted, or even worse, individuals who have hacked the system for either random or targeted malfeasance.

It seems to me that this trend represents a massive stride backward in the development of humanity.  While the technology is certainly amazing in itself, it represents a complete surrender of humans from the social, political and philosophical battle for free will and independence.  Our most basic rights of self-determination and liberty are being laid at the altar of our creations, so that we are no longer the masters of our creativity, but are becoming slaves to it.

Europe has probably the most sophisticated train system in the world.  It is run by massive automated hubs across well over a dozen countries, and has been developed over the past 50 years.  For the most part, it runs rather efficiently, moving thousands of people daily through multiple countries.  However, when a glitch occurs, it results in the deaths of dozens, even hundreds of people, and even more horrific injuries.  These glitches result from a simple error in any one of hundreds of sensors and variables that affect everything from track switches to acceleration and braking timing.  The computers have no way to check the validity of their choices and feel no weight of responsibility for the lives they control.

No matter how advanced the intelligence of the machines, they cannot feel or empathize, and at best can only simulate these things to a living observer, who might be fooled into interpreting them as genuine.  In reality, though, the machines are only running complex algorithms that project what the authors intend, and not what the machine actually experiences.

At the moment, large numbers of people are experiencing excitement and curiosity over the novelty of these technologies.  What is deeply concerning is that, through government regulation and corporate lobbying, there may be no choice once the novelty has worn off.  Once the technologies are ubiquitous and the systems of modern life are completely dependent on them, it will be very difficult to turn back, to say the least.  Even more disturbing is the possibility of being compelled to accept this surrender to the machine to satisfy the lust for power on the parts of a very few people, whether for the financial benefit of building the infrastructure, or the more nefarious need to enslave.

We must decide immediately, both individually and collectively, to resist the novelty and shun the technology.  Not only does it represent a significant threat to life and limb, but an even more grave long-term threat to the rights and dignity of the individual.  It is bad enough that we should lose our right to self-determination to other humans, but to the cold and insensitive calculations of a machine represents a wholly new and unique development in human history.  Should the machines prove capable enough, it may require the utter destruction of civilization to free ourselves, if it is at all possible.  I don't think it overstates the case to say that once installed, there may be no way to uninstall it.  The machines may well prove better capable of repairing and replicating, than humans are at tearing down and destroying, and certainly the machines could determine that we are enough of a bother to exterminate our species.

It would be ironic that humanity's long effort to get someone else to do the dirty work and take the blame may ultimately be the end of our brief and fragile existence.

Dawn Of Personhood, Part 2

As I set up in Part 1, the EU has begun a process to give robots a new legal classification of "person," called "electronic person."  We reviewed the legal entity called "person" and the ancient origin of this concept.  We then prepared to look at the possible outcome of such a move and how the outcome will affect Humanity for centuries to come.

We must admit that there has been an "elite" in every human culture throughout the collective history of our species.  This elite has, until the past two centuries, been generally isolated to particular cultures or regions.  In recent history, these elite have merged and aligned to create a global venue for their control systems.

Until recently, this elite has relied heavily on the rest of us "useless eaters" to perform the drudgery of daily life.  The non-elites have been the maids and nanies, butlers and chefs, and the button-pushers and lever pullers that made the elites' lives comfortable and trouble-free.

If one played by the elite rules, one could advance to the point of being very close to that inner circle.  One would be allowed to become famous and wealthy.  The rewards have flowed generously to the corporate leaders, court jesters, intellectual justifiers, and middle managers of the human race, as long as they pleased the elite and advanced their agenda.

The human race being what it is - desiring to be free, but burning to serve - it has slowly evolved over the centuries to demand workers' rights, equality, opportunity, and so on.  The elites have obliged by throwing the occasional bones, but those only last so long.

So, when technology finally advances to the point where "electronic persons" are possible, suddenly there is a big push to create and distribute them.  There is no discussion, no public discourse, no debate on the morals and ethics involved.  Just push them out the door at break-neck speed.

To me, the goal is clear: create a "race" of beings completely subservient and tireless that can serve the elite in the way, and without the trouble that humans bring, they are used to.  The rest of humanity is disposable, as long as the elites are not inconvenienced in any way.  They want to live in the clouds, high above the rabble and dirt and grime.  They want to hand down their edicts on humanity and otherwise not be disturbed by our wants and needs.

Enter the robots.

Obviously, the rest of humanity will not put up with this forever.  Eventually, enough robots will replace humans, and enough jobs be lost, that humanity will rise up and cast off the technological utopia that the elite are building for themselves.  It is a race against time now.  Can the elite build and deploy their mechanical servants faster than humanity wakes up?

What is quite apparent, at least to me, is that these elite are setting up a civilization apart from the rest of us.  They are putting their vast wealth, accumulated over centuries, to work building the means to finally and completely severe themselves from the writhing masses of unwashed humanity.  At some point, and rather soon I think, they will have the ability to either get rid of the rest of us, or leave this planet altogether, and robots are the key to that final schism.

We are seeing a splintering of our race into an elite group completely divorced of its need for lower classes, and the lower classes who have developed a need to serve the elite in order to survive.  The elite class has, until now, needed the rest of us to carry out the daily drudge of running the infrastructure of society that keeps the elite in their places.  The rest of us have needed the elite to pay us and grant favors to us so that we can rise above the squalid masses, if even just a little.

History is full of the elite treating the rest of us as slime, and the rest of us rising up and demanding equality.  For the entirety of history, the elite have granted small increments of freedom and self-determination in order to calm the masses back into subservience, but what will happen when the elite have an entire class of beings - electronic persons - who don't require basic amenities to feel human?  How will the elite react when, in fact, us useless eaters are truly useless to them?

There are two clear options ahead.  The elite must either wipe out the rest of humanity in order to finally possess the Earth for themselves, or they must leave and take up residence elsewhere.

In the first case, we seem to see quite a bit of evidence that the elite are trying to eradicate the rest of humanity.  Conspiracy theories aside, vaccines, geo-engineering, chemical toxicity, food quality (GMOs), and many other programs in concert appear to be a massive effort to sterilize, if not kill outright, the remainder of humanity.  If we, for a moment, put ourselves in the mindset of the elite who wish to "cleanse" the Earth of an infestation that is inconveniencing them, then multiple programs on many different fronts, each with plausible deniability alone, but in total adding up to a mass extinction effort, would seem to make a kind of Faustian sense.

On the other hand, if we the elite had decided to blow this Popsicle stand, then an all-out program to find habitable planets elsewhere, combined with programs to reseed other planets in our own back yard would likely be the signs of this kind of effort.

Since we see both going on, it would seem that the elite are hedging their bets.  On the chance that they can't find some place more to their liking within reach, then cleansing the Earth is the backup plan.

Either way, they need a servant class that is compliant and servile to see to their every need.  Enter the robot.

There is one problem with all of this, and it highlights the weakness of the elite.  They cannot survive without servants.  They have bred and coddled themselves into a genetic corner.  They have everything they could possibly want, except the ability to survive without 24/7 servants seeing to the more difficult aspects of living.

This is a true and deadly weakness.  Most of the masses have done so much with so little for so long, that surviving in adverse conditions is second-nature, and the elite know it and they fear us for it.  They have lost the ability to do even the most basic tasks because they have never had to learn.  Not just since birth, but for generations, they have never had to face true adversity. To them, a dip in the markets due to Brexit is about as difficult as life gets.

What all of this boils down to is that we masses have a choice.  They cannot live without servants, and they are trying desperately to create a new class of mechanical entities to replace us troublesome humans.  Either we let them, or we don't.  Simple.

Throughout history, the elite have always had new places to run.  First, it was regions of the EurAsian continent, then the New World, but the places to hide are getting slim due to the unbridled breeding of humans.  Creating a class of beings they think are more controllable is their solution, and we will all suffer for it, one way or another, if we allow it.

The EU decision to create "electronic persons" is the first shot in what will become, sooner or later, the battle of Humanity, and quite possibly the Earth itself.

Perhaps you accuse me of hyperbole, but an honest and profound examination of history, plus a serious and clear pondering of the near future given the facts hidden in plain sight, will inevitably lead to the same conclusions.

Other writers and researchers have focused on finances, or space technology, or other aspects of this growing war to come to the conclusion that there is an increasing separation, or breakaway of civilizations.  I have chosen to focus on robots as one of the key means by which the separation will be achieved.  And it is coming fast.

We masses have been responsible for our own education for a long time.  The public systems are nothing more than sorting pens for the elites purposes.  It is time now to turn our intellects to being proactive.  We must education ourselves on the legal and technological issues facing us right now.  Will we allow an artificial race to be created?  One that relegates the majority of humans to third-class status, even completely disposable?

When you see robots presented as cute, cuddly fun, you should be horrified and indignant.  It is time to react appropriately to our own demise.

Dawn Of Personhood,Part 1

We had several major geo-political tremors this week.  As I write this (Friday), it looks like Brexit is in the lead by less than a million votes.  Can't cut it much finer than that, and I still don't believe it will happen, regardless of the vote.  Too much riding on it.

There's the story about Obama getting his Executive Orders handed back to him, as well.  Nothing could make me happier.  The president of the US has gotten too sloppy and lazy with these EOs.  The country doesn't have a king or a dictator (yet), or so it seems after the Supreme Court ruling.  It also shuts down the wholesale importation of immigrants and all the amnesty rubbish.  Still, a lot remains to be determined when it comes to presidential powers and Obama's determination to destroy American culture.  Honestly, if the country wants to give itself away, why not hand it back to the folks who were the original inhabitants?  But then, those cultures have long been destroyed, as well.

Out of all the big stories, though, the biggest comes from the EU parliament, and it has nothing to do with Brexit.  It has everything to do with robots and may go a long way to kick-starting a conversation that should have started a long time ago.

Topic: What do we do when machines take all the jobs?

In short, the EU has decided to give "electronic personhood" to robots, to include certain rights and obligations, such as copyright on intellectual property, the use of money in exchange and the need to pay taxes.  In effect, the EU has extended the rights of corporations to individual machines, known commonly as robots.

In case you haven't kept up your law degree for some time, the legal term "person" is a non-corporeal being created by the State, which has rights and obligations similar to corporeal citizens.  Keep in mind, too, that a citizen is a living being, though not necessarily a human.  In maritime law, a corporeal being is generally referred to as a "soul," which distinguishes it from cargo and other valuables.

The legal terminology is very convoluted, but suffice it to say that the EU has effectively imbued robots with individual identity and freedom.

Of the major news stories this week, I think this will have effects long after everyone has forgotten Obama or Brexit.  We are talking decades if not centuries will be affected by this decision.  It's that important.

As I've discussed here many times, corporate entities are a very old concept in Western law.  Unlike Asia, where officers and employees are individually liable for the actions of the whole, the Western concept separates the corporation from the individuals who make it up.  The concept is rooted in the theology surrounding Matthew 18:20, "For where two or more are gathered in my name, there too am I," or variations to that effect.  Thus, the Roman Church became an entity unto itself, wholly separate from the individuals who make it up, and as Western law evolved, corporations became the secular version of the Church.

To distinguish what are known as "legal fictions," such as corporations, they were termed "persons" under the law, as opposed to "human beings."  A "person" could have self-determination and own property, but it didn't have a "soul" or a "conscience."  Thus, the person had to be completely controlled and regulated by the State, since its actions may constitute a hazard that a human being might avoid by virtue of a conscience.

In modern Western societies, even human beings have been turned into persons, often referred to as "straw men" by so-called conspiracy theorists, so that the State could have the "right" to regulate and control every aspect of our lives - a concept deeply foreign to older ways of thinking, but which took hold in US law in the first half of the 20th century.

By granting robots "electronic personhood," the EU has created a new class of "person" that will at least have many of the legal characteristics of a corporation.  It would have the right to autonomy within the limits of the law.  It would be able to create and own property.  It would be empowered to operate in the economy as an individual, and it would have to pay taxes.

Where things get a bit murky is how those taxes would be allocated.  Some would pay into what amounts to an insurance pool to cover damages and liabilities incurred by robot persons.  It would also feed the State with its labor, much as humans do now.  It would, though still controversial, also pay into a fund to guarantee a minimal income to humans displaced by robots in the workforce.

Humans displaced by technology is nothing new.  The invention and widespread use of cars led to the near extinction of blacksmiths and livery stables.  Jethro Tull's harvester put thousands of farmers out of business and led to the rise of agribusiness.  Autolooms and sewing machines put thousands of seamstresses and weavers out of work.  Even the electric light bulb led to the demise of the lamp-lighter.

However, in most cases one innovation killed one class of jobs, but led to new ones.  Printers became pressmen.  Blacksmiths became mechanics.  Cobblers became shoe-repairmen, and so on.

What do you do when a machine is capable of replacing an entire human being?

An interesting and impending philosophical question.

How do you compete with a "person" that never needs a smoke break or a meal, never gets sick or pregnant, works 24/7 without a vacation or even sleep time, can be amortized as a capital investment, and can be taught a new task in seconds - even able to analyze and improve it functions as it goes?

We are staring down the barrel of the end of all jobs everywhere for all time.  On the one hand, that could mean that humans will finally be free to pursue self-improvement and self-actualization.  More than likely, though, given humanity's track record, it will lead to the vast majority of humans descending into abject poverty, death and misery.

Basically, it creates two entirely separate cultures.  Since humans would never allow themselves to obsolete that way, they will reject everything automated and create a new economy  This would obviously create an elite class that would no longer depend on the rest of us, and who would likely pursue a different course.

So, how would this play out?

That is a very interesting question, and now that I've set up the scenario, you'll have to wait for Part 2 to play the "What If" game.  We are likely seeing all the pieces in motion right now.  The question becomes, when will the hammer drop?

PART 2